Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: Arta[vL] on March 14, 2004, 05:02 PM
It wouldn't be so bad if the law required waiting periods; required permanent records of gun ownership; required mandatory training that was very thorough; required secure, lockable storage for firearms

I don't disagree with any of that in any way, shape, or form.

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 04:26 PMAnd I have said at least a dozen times, I never said that background checks and proper training were NOT neccessary. As a side note, not just anybody can own a gun. I've said it before and I'll say it again, banning the legal sale of guns will not stop the illegal sale and if you have a brain in your head you will realize that guns used in violent crimes are almost never legally obtained.

Which means they are illegally obtained.  For them to be illegally obtained, they must exist and be available.  Thus, stolen from gun owners.  Or maybe stolen from muppets?  Clearly thieves stole them and sold to people.

This means your background checks and proper training are both out the window.  Gun owners cannot be trusted to prevent theft, they cannot be trained to prevent theft, and neither proposition can apply to the person who buys it eventually.

Since 2/2 of your requirements for effective gun ownership are unobtainable, will you now admit that gun ownership is bad?

Quote from: Grok on March 14, 2004, 05:12 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 04:26 PMAnd I have said at least a dozen times, I never said that background checks and proper training were NOT neccessary. As a side note, not just anybody can own a gun. I've said it before and I'll say it again, banning the legal sale of guns will not stop the illegal sale and if you have a brain in your head you will realize that guns used in violent crimes are almost never legally obtained.

Which means they are illegally obtained.  For them to be illegally obtained, they must exist and be available.  Thus, stolen from gun owners.  Or maybe stolen from muppets?  Clearly thieves stole them and sold to people.

This means your background checks and proper training are both out the window.  Gun owners cannot be trusted to prevent theft, they cannot be trained to prevent theft, and neither proposition can apply to the person who buys it eventually.

Since 2/2 of your requirements for effective gun ownership are unobtainable, will you now admit that gun ownership is bad?

Guns will still be imported from overseas. Unless of course you feel you have the right to ban weapons from the face of the Earth?

Background checks and appropriate training will help to prevent theft. With the training will come training on how to store and protect your firearms.

Now that both of your points have been shown to be invalid, would you like to admit you don't know what you're talking about?

Grok, I have noticed that you repeatedly blame guns themselves as inherently evil. Is this so?

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 05:16 PM

Quote from: Grok on March 14, 2004, 05:12 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 04:26 PMAnd I have said at least a dozen times, I never said that background checks and proper training were NOT neccessary. As a side note, not just anybody can own a gun. I've said it before and I'll say it again, banning the legal sale of guns will not stop the illegal sale and if you have a brain in your head you will realize that guns used in violent crimes are almost never legally obtained.

Which means they are illegally obtained.  For them to be illegally obtained, they must exist and be available.  Thus, stolen from gun owners.  Or maybe stolen from muppets?  Clearly thieves stole them and sold to people.

This means your background checks and proper training are both out the window.  Gun owners cannot be trusted to prevent theft, they cannot be trained to prevent theft, and neither proposition can apply to the person who buys it eventually.

Since 2/2 of your requirements for effective gun ownership are unobtainable, will you now admit that gun ownership is bad?

Guns will still be imported from overseas. Unless of course you feel you have the right to ban weapons from the face of the Earth?

Background checks and appropriate training will help to prevent theft. With the training will come training on how to store and protect your firearms.

Now that both of your points have been shown to be invalid, would you like to admit you don't know what you're talking about?

Grok, I have noticed that you repeatedly blame guns themselves as inherently evil. Is this so?

Not so fast, my friend.  ($1 to Corso)

Are you saying that guns obtained illegally are not from owners who had background checks (btw, what IS this background check that magically solves all problems?), and proper training?

Are guns not taken from properly trained people?

I have not said guns are inherently evil.  If I have, please quote me.  I did say that guns are not defensive.  They are designed to kill, not protect.  The net effect can sometimes be the same, but with a gun you kill someone merely to protect your wallet.  I definitely would say that situation is evil.

Quote from: Grok on March 14, 2004, 05:59 PM

Are you saying that guns obtained illegally are not from owners who had background checks (btw, what IS this background check that magically solves all problems?), and proper training?

Are guns not taken from properly trained people?

I have not said guns are inherently evil.  If I have, please quote me.  I did say that guns are not defensive.  They are designed to kill, not protect.  The net effect can sometimes be the same, but with a gun you kill someone merely to protect your wallet.  I definitely would say that situation is evil.

A properly trained firearms carrier would not have a problem having their weapons stolen in the first place.

No, a properly trained person deals with his or her firearm in an appropriate manner to protect from theft.

You cannot kill someone for trying to take your wallet or for trying to steal your big screen. Get this through your head! The only reason you can kill somebody is if you feel that your life or the life of somebody else is in IMMINENT and GRAVE danger. You are a moron if you think that a properly trained person would shoot somebody who is trying to run off with their stereo. Its not to protect your PROPERTY!! Its to protect your LIFE. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?

Quote from: Arta[vL] on March 14, 2004, 05:02 PMno one needs assault rifles, automatic weapons...

Even with those kinds of restrictions, it's still just a flawed system, IMO. I'm not sure what the best way to fix it is, but it does need fixing.

No one needs automobiles either, and they're very dangerous.  Yet somehow they're very popular and are sold regularly.

Quote from: Kp on March 14, 2004, 07:03 PM

Quote from: Arta[vL] on March 14, 2004, 05:02 PMno one needs assault rifles, automatic weapons...

Even with those kinds of restrictions, it's still just a flawed system, IMO. I'm not sure what the best way to fix it is, but it does need fixing.

No one needs automobiles either, and they're very dangerous.  Yet somehow they're very popular and are sold regularly.

Excellent point.

Would Adron/Arta/Grok please respond with their thoughts as to what I have written in my profile?

Quote911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.

Quote from: iago on March 14, 2004, 07:34 PM

Quote911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.

That nearly proves my point for me iago. Where were the cops to break up all that violence? They sure did do a good job of protecting the innocent there. I only wish there had been armed citizens capable of returning fire and saving innocent lives. Trained teachers and administrators, for example.

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 07:38 PM
That nearly proves my point for me iago. Where were the cops to break up all that violence? They sure did do a good job of protecting the innocent there. I only wish there had been armed citizens capable of returning fire and saving innocent lives. Trained teachers and administrators, for example.

What you're saying is that you want a society where everyone has to wear their gun at all times, ready to shoot. In such a society, which is what you're having in some places now, having a gun becomes a necessity for everyone. If you don't have a gun, you'll be shot. You don't have to have such a society though.

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 07:28 PM
Would Adron/Arta/Grok please respond with their thoughts as to what I have written in my profile?

Your gun may be able to send crime-stoppers at a high speed. It will happen in an extremely limited number of cases, practically never. At the same time, the widespread distribution costs human lives continously. The choice is clear.

Quote from: Kp on March 14, 2004, 07:03 PM
No one needs automobiles either, and they're very dangerous.  Yet somehow they're very popular and are sold regularly.

That's an interesting point. Still, comparing the widespread use of automobiles for legitimate purposes with the use of guns for legitimate purposes, I'd say there's a pretty big difference.

Automobiles are efficient at moving people between places. I still suggest that people try other means of transportation when available. Regulations can reduce the risks of automobiles greatly. Stolen automobiles are easier to spot than stolen guns, and modern theft protection systems can greatly reduce the risk of stolen cars being used to wreak havoc.

Think about the consequences of removing automobiles, perhaps it'd be worth doing. It deserves its own thread though.

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 07:02 PM
You cannot kill someone for trying to take your wallet or for trying to steal your big screen. Get this through your head! The only reason you can kill somebody is if you feel that your life or the life of somebody else is in IMMINENT and GRAVE danger. You are a moron if you think that a properly trained person would shoot somebody who is trying to run off with their stereo. Its not to protect your PROPERTY!! Its to protect your LIFE. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?

So this is to understand that is someone steps up to you on the street to rob you of your wallet, you'll give your wallet away instead of trying to use your gun?

Quote from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 07:56 PM

Quote from: Kp on March 14, 2004, 07:03 PM
No one needs automobiles either, and they're very dangerous.  Yet somehow they're very popular and are sold regularly.

That's an interesting point. Still, comparing the widespread use of automobiles for legitimate purposes with the use of guns for legitimate purposes, I'd say there's a pretty big difference.

Automobiles are efficient at moving people between places. I still suggest that people try other means of transportation when available. Regulations can reduce the risks of automobiles greatly. Stolen automobiles are easier to spot than stolen guns, and modern theft protection systems can greatly reduce the risk of stolen cars being used to wreak havoc.

Think about the consequences of removing automobiles, perhaps it'd be worth doing. It deserves its own thread though.

Regulations can reduce the risks of guns greatly. How will airbags reduce the risk of a stolen car plowing through a school yard and mowing over an entire 1st grade class? Guns are an efficent means of protecting life and limb, just as automobiles are efficent ways of moving people from place to place. You argue that we don't guns but we don't need planes, automobiles, busses, ets.

Quote from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 07:57 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 07:02 PM
You cannot kill someone for trying to take your wallet or for trying to steal your big screen. Get this through your head! The only reason you can kill somebody is if you feel that your life or the life of somebody else is in IMMINENT and GRAVE danger. You are a moron if you think that a properly trained person would shoot somebody who is trying to run off with their stereo. Its not to protect your PROPERTY!! Its to protect your LIFE. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?

So this is to understand that is someone steps up to you on the street to rob you of your wallet, you'll give your wallet away instead of trying to use your gun?

Yes. If they have a weapon, however, its on. Why can't you accept that people can be responsible with weapons?

Quote from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 07:50 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 07:28 PM
Would Adron/Arta/Grok please respond with their thoughts as to what I have written in my profile?

Your gun may be able to send crime-stoppers at a high speed. It will happen in an extremely limited number of cases, practically never. At the same time, the widespread distribution costs human lives continously. The choice is clear.

The chances that you will be in a car accident is not considerably high, yet you still wear a seat belt and carry a first aid kit. Your chances of getting a flat aren't very high, yet you still carry a jack, tools, and spare tire. The chances of a candle catching your drapes on fire aren't very high, yet you still have a fire extinguisher handy.

Quote from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 07:48 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 07:38 PM
That nearly proves my point for me iago. Where were the cops to break up all that violence? They sure did do a good job of protecting the innocent there. I only wish there had been armed citizens capable of returning fire and saving innocent lives. Trained teachers and administrators, for example.

What you're saying is that you want a society where everyone has to wear their gun at all times, ready to shoot. In such a society, which is what you're having in some places now, having a gun becomes a necessity for everyone. If you don't have a gun, you'll be shot. You don't have to have such a society though.

You're equating gun ownership with violence. If you have a gun and you are properly trained you are able to save lives. I wish that the teachers, administrators, and resource officers had been better prepared and armed to put down such terrorism. Adron, you just don't seem to have too firm a hold on reality. As long as nearly 2% of the population acts in a malicious manner, the majority needs effective means of protecting itself. In the real world, the limited number of police and the pepper spray just wont cut it.